Update no.395

Update from the Heartland
No.395
6.7.09 – 12.7.09
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/

To all,
The follow-up news items:
-- General Colin Luther Powell, USA (ret.) added his voice to the list of general/flag officers advocating for a thorough review and assessment of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy/law [265, et al] regarding the service of homosexuals in the military.
“Time to review policy on gays in U.S. military: Powell”
by Lesley Wroughton
Reuters
Published: Sunday, July 5, 2009; 11:52 EDT
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE5641A920090705
-- The Washington Post reported that the National Institutes of Health has issued new guidelines for the use of hundreds of other embryonic stem cell lines for critical biological research [146, et al]. Now, we can restart and expand vital biological and medical research suspended for that last eight years.
-- Another broadside in the Congress v. CIA tête-à-tête [387] was fired this week in the continuing effort to protect the House Speaker’s foolish accusations of intentional subterfuge on the part of the national intelligence agency. A number of House members (reportedly 50+) wrote a letter to Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) Leon Edward Panetta, adding their voices to the Speaker’s accusations that the CIA has been lying to Congress.
“Pelosi v. CIA - Videotapes for agents, secrecy for the Speaker”
Editorial
Washington Post
Published: July 8, 2009
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124701436661709153.html#mod=djemEditorialPage
Of course, “someone” “leaked” the sensitive document to the Press. Such is life in our Nation’s Capitol. A few days later, the New York Times added another revelation that suggests none other than former Vice President Cheney directed that certain information be withheld from Congress.
“Cheney Is Linked to Concealment of C.I.A. Project”
by Scott Shane
New York Times
Published: July 11, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/12/us/politics/12intel.html?_r=1&hp
The Wall Street Journal reported the “secret” program in question was a clandestine mission to kill or capture Usama bin Ladin. Don’t we all feel so much better knowing classified information can be so easily compromised for political reasons? Oh yes, I feel much better.
-- The NTSB issued their findings in the case of Steve Fossett’s crash [300]. The Board concluded that Fossett had “an inadvertent encounter with downdrafts that exceeded the climb capability of the airplane. Contributing to the accident were the downdrafts, high density altitude, and mountainous terrain.” Aviators have a vernacular expression for such events . . . in essence, it was not his day. May God rest his immortal soul.

This weekend, I watched the HBO Documentary titled: “Shouting Fire: Stories from the Edge of Free Speech,” first aired on 29.June.2009; produced and directed by Liz Garbus, featuring her father, renown 1st Amendment lawyer Martin Garbus. The program illuminates contemporary 1st Amendment issues raised during the War on Islamic Fascism. I strongly urge every freedom-loving citizen to watch the program with devoted attention.

In a very rare opportunity (Sunday + Jeanne off shopping), I watched the last several hours of the launch sequence for a shuttle mission – STS-127 – only to have NASA scrub the launch at the T-9:00 hold, due to a Return To Launch Site (RTLS) weather violation. Oh bummer . . . summer time weather in Florida.

President Obama, accompanied by his family, carried out a week long foreign trip that began in Moscow, Russia. What an incredible and magnificent opportunity for the children. In Moscow, the President signed a preliminary agreement on nuclear arms reduction – small steps on a long journey. Some images of Putin greeting Obama for their personal meeting suggest that they may have met at Joe Stalin’s country dacha along the Moscow River – the premier’s or president’s summer/vacation residence outside Moscow. If so, quite curious, that Putin occupied the traditional residence, or perhaps, Putin and Medvedev share the summer mansion. The President, family, and entourage went on to the G8 Summit in the earthquake devastated region of L'Aquila, Italy. He also met with Pope Benedict XVI in Vatican City, and I am fairly certain received a lecture regarding life, poverty, war and arms control – all the easy topics. They departed for their last stop in Accra, Ghana [11.7.09], for the President to make a speech to the Ghanaian parliament, where he declared, “We are all God’s children. We all share common aspirations.” How true, how true! In my world travels, common citizens like me are essentially the same; we want to live our lives in peace, live comfortably, and help our children grow up to have a better life than we did.

Public evidence suggests the DPRK carried out a cyber-attack on various free nations including Japan, Australia, RoK, and the United States. Thus, the question of the day must be: Is a cyber-attack from another country an act of war? My opinion: absolutely . . . as assuredly as a bomb or an invasion. The purpose is destruction, damage, and disruption of our way of life. What is different from a conventional invasion where territory and citizens are violated?

I received an eLetter from John O. Brennan, the President’s advisor on Homeland Security, on behalf of the Secretaries of Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, and Education, to prepare us for the upcoming influenza season. The noted URL was
http://www.flu.gov/
I note this receipt not so much for the content but rather yet another first for this administration – the White House communicating directly with common citizens like me. Interesting!

The Supreme Court case from the past session that seemed to attract the most attention, largely due to the impending Senate confirmation hearings for Judge Sotomayor, finally got to the top of my “to read” list. The New Haven firefighters’ “Equal Protection” case – Ricci v. DeStefano [557 U.S. ___ (2009); no. 07-1428] – took a step back from the common affirmative action initiatives and moved ever so slightly toward true equality envisioned by the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment. The case focuses upon the inherent conflict between the 14th Amendment and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 [PL 88-352, 78 Stat. 253; 42 U.S.C. §2000e]. Title VII prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Writing for the Court, Associate Justice Anthony McLeod Kennedy said, “Without some other justification, this express, race-based decisionmaking violates Title VII’s command that employers cannot take adverse employment actions because of an individual's race.” He observed and noted, “On the record before us, there is no genuine dispute that the City lacked a strong basis in evidence to believe it would face disparate-impact liability if it certified the [written] examination results. In other words, there is no evidence – let alone the required strong basis in evidence – that the tests were flawed because they were not job-related or because other, equally valid and less discriminatory tests were available to the City. Fear of litigation alone cannot justify an employer's reliance on race to the detriment of individuals who passed the examinations and qualified for promotions.” The test in question was the written portion (60% of final ranking; an oral exam made up the remaining 40%), which asked questions from content known to the examinees. Associate Justice Ruth Joan Bader Ginsburg focused her dissent on the test and its weighting, “Relying heavily on written tests to select fire officers is a questionable practice, to say the least.” She strove to diminish the value of a written examination that is the heart and essence of this case. Apparently, Ruth wants the Court to enter the employment advancement selection process. Yet, she failed to acknowledge that objective criteria for selection are far superior to subjective factors that are prone to bias, preference and latent discrimination that could be driven by any one or a combination of the social factors. Then, I read the New York Times editorial on the Ricci decision.
“Firefighters and Race”
Editorial
New York Times
Published: June 30, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/01/opinion/01wed1.html?th&emc=th
The Times’ editors concluded, “It was the court’s conservatives, including Chief Justice John Roberts, who voted to overturn the decision of an elected government.” As with life itself, we view events through the len of our liking, our experience, our education, our training, and our choices. So it is for all of us including the Times editorial staff, Supreme Court justices, and you & me. This case raises a blinding flurry of questions from an era we all hoped we had already passed through. Is not printing a written test in French or Chinese, or using Ebonics (or colloquial gangsta rap jargon), discriminatory to those citizens (firefighters) who prefer those forms of communication? Is a physical test that requires a job-related threshold of strength, adversely discriminatory to some citizens? We have an obligation to establish neutral, un-biased, job-related standards. Firefighters are not simple manual laborers. They must communicate, assess, collect information, calculate, read, learn, all the skills to understand the environment and conditions they are called upon to neutralize and deal with in our communities. Sure, they must be physically fit, possess sufficient muscle strength and endurance; but, they must also work within a team and quickly absorb information from a wide variety of sources. Whatever the standards, they should be driven by the demands & needs of the job, and must be neutral regard to the social factors – age, gender, race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, and political affiliation. To lower the standards to “favor” any one or combination of factors to enable “better representation” will only serve to weaken the service. This is true for any job. The standards for a clerk, or a project engineer, or an infantry soldier, are all different and necessarily so. Yet, diversity is important and valuable to any organization. How do we achieve diversity without recognition of the social factors? We needed affirmative action programs to breakdown racial barriers that stifled integration. On the other side of the scale, to lower standards of performance to the lowest common denominator in some vain attempt to remedy past discrimination ultimately will not achieve the objective and will only institutionalize mediocrity. Any criterion for selection or advancement must be based on performance standards required for satisfactory accomplishment of job requirements and must be blind to the social factors, as they have no bearing on job performance. One of these days, perhaps, we can mature as a culture to separate public from private, and professional from social. Ricci helps us along the way ever so slightly. The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment applies to all citizens equally; it was never intended or imagined to be confined or restricted to minority populations. To close my opinion, what we see in Justice Alito’s recounting of city administrative events subsequent to the examination up to the point of certification illuminates a highly dysfunctional city fraught with serious racial tensions, and as portrayed in Alito’s rendition, subject to a racial bully of substantial proportion. New Haven, Connecticut, is on my list of places I do not want to visit and have no interest in ever living there . . . and I am certain Reverend Boise Kimber is happy with that.

News from the economic front:
-- A federal bankruptcy judge approved a plan by General Motors to sell its best assets to a new, government-backed company. We, the People, via the Federal government, will own 61% of the new company – hopefully, a temporary condition. The company emerged from Chapter 11 bankruptcy on Friday, much quicker than expected, six weeks after entering court-sponsored reorganization [391]. General Motors Company, as it will be known, will retain Chevrolet, Cadillac, Buick and GMC. It is selling Saturn, Saab, and Hummer. The Pontiac brand will be terminated.
-- U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) reportedly intends to propose sweeping trading limits on oil, natural gas and possibly other commodities, in an effort to constrain excessive speculation. The CFTC will also review whether swap dealers, index traders and exchange-traded fund managers should be allowed to circumvent limits through special hedge exemptions. I hope this is not the extent of regulation of the derivatives trading market; the evidence against unrestrained derivative markets is just too damning.
-- In sum, the Wall Street Journal reported that retailers experienced generally lower same-store sales again in June with consumers’ continued reluctance to spend. Among those reporting, Target had a worse-than-expected 6.2% decline. Abercrombie & Fitch was among the worst performers, posting a 32% drop. TJX and Ross reported small gains.
-- The Wall Street Journal also reported the results of their periodic survey of economists. Only eight of 51 economists indicated they believed more stimulus is necessary. Most said the U.S. does not need another round of stimulus now, despite expectations of continued severe job losses. On average, the economists forecast an unemployment rate of at least 10% through June, with a decline to 9.5% by December 2010. Just over half feel the current stimulus package has provided somewhat of a boost, with the greater effect to come in the future.
-- American International Group (AIG) notified President Obama’s compensation czar of their intention to pay about US$250M in bonuses that will come due during the next nine months. My opinion of such extravagance remains unchanged.
-- The administration is considering the diversion of a portion of the US$700B TARP funds [355] for support to small businesses, a substantial shift from the rescue program’s original mandate.
-- CIT Group, a lender to mostly small and midsize businesses across the country, is preparing for a possible bankruptcy filing after so far failing to win a government guarantee to help it borrow. Presumably, the government’s TARP diversion consideration will aid CIT and others. Kinda sounds like “spread the wealth” doesn’t it?
-- The Wall Street Journal reported that UBS and the U.S. Justice Department (DOJ) jointly asked a federal court to postpone a Monday hearing in order to give the two sides a chance to negotiate a settlement and potentially allow UBS to avoid turning over thousands of client names to the Internal Revenue Service. The move delays or potentially avoids a diplomatic confrontation between the U.S. and Swiss governments over whether Swiss banking privacy law allowed UBS to hand over the demanded information. UBS is trying to figure out how it can potentially deliver some information to the DOJ and the IRS without turning over some 52,000 account holders that the IRS is seeking as part of a long tax-evasion investigation.

The Blago Scandal [365]:
-- Although not Blago, the disgraced governor’s bosom-buddy, Senator Roland Burris of Illinois [368], announced he will not seek proper election to the seat he occupies in Congress in 2010. Good decision, Roland!

Comments and contributions from Update no.394:
“I’m glad the Minnesota election is finally over.
“The Iraqi withdrawal is a marketing ploy. The US troops are now ‘trainers’ or ‘advisors’ a la Vietnam, and the bases now border the city limits rather than being legally inside those cities.
“Events in Iran continue to surprise me. People reach a point of defying pretty much anything, I guess. I hope the protestors win; if not, a bloodbath will ensue.
“My hope is that Governor Palin has had enough pressure and is going back to her little town. I certainly agree with you than another multi-year election would be aggravating at best.
“I suspect that Savana Redding's ugly introduction to the fears of school administrators is not nearly unusual enough. They respond to fear today much as they did forty years ago when I attended school. More than likely the parents were informed of all this after that fact, most likely by Savana. I applaud their willingness to pursue a remedy. Many parents would not have done anything.”
My response posted on the Blog:
I can understand your view of the withdrawal from Iraq, but I do not agree that it is a marketing ploy. I think urban security responsibility has been transferred from the Coalition to the Iraqi government. Yes, troops are still there. The transition is only a week old. I would consider it irresponsible to remove Coalition troops from the country, until we can all have some assurance things won’t go south.
I suspect Sarah Palin will not stay in Wasilla for long.
The courts have often used a prevailing assumption that schools hold in loco parentis responsibility de facto, if not under the law. I have never been comfortable with the assumption as it accepts a level of abdication by parents to the schools. I object to the assumption on many levels. Yet, this is the state in which we have placed public schools. The action in the case of Savanna Redding may have been appropriate is certain contexts, but the Court majority (5-4) concluded that the school’s action exceeded the available evidence and other potential remedies. On the other side of the ledger, the Press referred to Savanna’s experience as a strip search with implicit images of a naked, 13-year-old girl on display before gawking school officials. She was never naked. She was not touched. A female nurse with a female administrative assistant as a witness observed her pulled-away brassiere and waistband of her panties. Nonetheless, the Supremes determined that search was excessive and violated Savanna’s 4th Amendment protection. All in all, I return to the parents. Yes, thank goodness Savanna’s parents had the strength to file suit; however, they also hold some culpability in the incident, i.e., there were reasons Savanna found herself in that position, yet, none of those reasons were ever addressed. The Supremes reacted to the symptoms presented to them under established law. Society has a far larger problem we seem impotent to address.
. . . a follow-up query:
“Re: ‘there were reasons Savana found herself in that position.’ I do not understand your implication here. How could the parents have controlled the other student who, upon being caught with prescription pills, implicated Savana, most likely out of panic?”
. . . and my reply:
First, before I offer my answer to your query, please allow me a preface. I have tried not to judge folks based on superficial or limited information. Yet, I have been a “where there’s smoke” kinda guy. That does not mean they are guilty of a crime necessarily, but conduct does lead folks toward certain situations. Further, as I know with accident investigations, there is always a sequence of events – a chain – acts of God, as we say, are rare – such that the removal of any one link can and probably would alter the outcome. Accident investigators look for those causal factors that lead to the conclusion. That said . . . to answer your query.
Although not contained in the Supreme Court’s ruling, I suspect there are a multitude of “dots” that led the school vice principal to believe that Marissa’s accusation (the other girl) was not only reasonable but accurate. If we look passt the surface facts, I think we will find Savanna had other behavioral indicators that would suggest deficient or aberrant conduct and parental contribution – complacency, acquiescence, apathy or such. This is a case where my notional social police thesis would have been quite helpful, if not decisive.
Regardless, the Court ruled as they had to, according to the law. The dissenters were wrong for a host of reasons. Yet, the Redding case will chill the in loco parentis assumptions that public schools operate under, which in itself will not be helpful.
Lastly, the optimist in me would like to think a case like Redding might inspire citizens to amend the law to recognize and acknowledge that parents are responsible and accountable for the conduct of their children until they reach the age of majority.

Comments from another contributor:
“Re: soon to be former Governor Palin, this is the SECOND time that she has quit a major state position before her term was up. Previously, she was Chair of the State Oil and Gas Commission and she stepped down after a flap regarding a former commission member. I think I see a trend.
“Not sure if I would describe her speech as ‘in Johnson-esque fashion.’ More like Daffy-esque. Totally rambling, incoherent and not actually saying why she is stepping down. Tres Bizarre, n’est-ce pas? A couple of years ago, she compared herself to a mother Grizzly bear protecting her cubs in her protection of Alaska. Now she steps down due to being a ‘lame duck’ and ‘media pressure.’ As an Alaska editorial wrote, she implicitly agreed to serve her full term while running for Governor. Every elected official has a ‘lame duck’ period – very, very few quit during that period. She probably has ruined her chances for higher office, which is a good thing for the country. Actually, she really didn’t care much about actually governing, as many Alaskan politicians have noted – she checked out about a year ago. Also particularly egregious about the timing of her announcement is that it was on the eve of not only the 4th, but Alaska’s 50th anniversary of statehood. As if she was trying to steal the thunder from that. As it was, most Alaskans enjoyed the Statehood festivities without her. Amazing. [Might have something to do with her husband being a member of a secessionist party – as she might actually be. She has attended annual meetings.]
My reply:
Clearly, you are not a fan of Sarah. Time shall tell the tale.
“Johnson-esque” in that she announced she would not seek a second term – nothing more. Oui, Bizarre!
We do not know the “rest of the story,” and we may never know. Nonetheless, I suspect she made hard choices she believes will best position her for a presidential run in 2012; as I said, an all-in gamble. The best indicator will be her actions in support of congressional and gubernatorial elections in 2010. Perhaps her resignation is the death knell, but I am not so quick to dismiss her. Secessionist mentality, like the foolishness of Governor Perry, is a true fatal wound, far more so than resignation or alternative paths.
I would not have advised her to take the path she is apparently taking, but I am not a politician. Vederemo!
. . . round two:
“I think Palin is a very shallow and unserious politician. She clearly isn't interested in the daily grind of running an executive office. Purportedly, she tunes out after about 15 minutes – and that is on issues she is interested in. She has aroused the ire of both parties – especially her own, in Alaska and really has done a mediocre, if not poor job of governing. Now that oil/gas revenues are down and there has to be hard choices in state government, she is getting out. She really screwed over Alaska, especially making her announcement on the eve of a major state event, the 50th Anniversary of Statehood. She might have a hard time being elected moose control officer now.
“With that and her husband's (if not her own) secessionist ties, her leaving the government stage is good.”
. . . with this follow-up before I could reply:
“Also, another note to show how massively ignorant she is....
“But as for whether another pursuit of national office, as she did less than a year ago when she joined Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., in the race for the White House, would result in the same political blood sport, Palin said there is a difference between the White House and what she has experienced in Alaska. If she were in the White House, she said, the ‘department of law’ would protect her from baseless ethical allegations. ‘I think on a national level, your department of law there in the White House would look at some of the things that we've been charged with and automatically throw them out,’ she said. There is no ‘Department of Law’ at the White House.”
. . . my round two reply:
As I’ve said, you may well be far more perceptive than me regarding Sarah Palin. As is my nature, I look for the good as well as the bad in folks. I had not heard the “department of law” comment. You quoted but did not offer attribution; if reliable & accurate, the comment would be a very sad punctuation on a flash in the political pan. As I’ve mentioned elsewhere, social conservatives seem to be attracted to her for the same reason they were attached to W – unwaveringly support for the social conservative agenda. Tolerance of her country bumpkin image will only be tolerated so far and she may have long passed the threshold.
. . . round three:
“Here is a link to the article (ABC News) with the quote on the ‘department of law.’
“Sarah Palin: Why She Resigned – Sarah Palin Talks to ABC News About Why She Resigned”
by Kate Snow
ABC News
ANCHORAGE, ALASKA, July 7, 2009
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=8016906&page=1
“Also, she complains about the cost to the state of ‘millions of dollars’ in the ethics investigations. The Alaska press has noted that the cost is much less, about $300,000 and over half of that is for an investigation (Troopergate) that Palin herself, as Governor, requested. Another data point for her being factually-challenged. It is scary to consider how close she got to being VP – to a person who would have been the oldest elected President in history, and a cancer survivor and former POW to boot (both with higher than average mortality rates).
“Another theory, maybe a boyfriend in Argentina? :)”
. . . my concession:
Got it! Thank you for the link. I concede.
“[B]oyfriend in Argentina” . . . I like it.

Another contribution:
“As usual I am not totally up to date on all the goings on in Iran, but see you mention that the root of the election protests was women wanting equal rights ... isn't that something we have been hoping mid Eastern women could get more of?”
“AMEN ! .. on hoping Palin doesn't head into another multi-year presidential campaign .. she is an embarrassment for the Republican party ... they ought to disallow her to do so ! ..... or just not encourage it ...”
My response:
I’m not so sure the Iranian election protest began as a gender civil rights affair, but that is certainly how it is looking now. Perhaps it was the women who were most serious about change; they refused to go quietly into the night; and now, we see the regime for what it is. A number of important clerics have now picked up the banner. No telling how this is going to turn out. However, theocratic dictators are no different from their secular brethren; they will use whatever means necessary, including brutal violence, to hold onto power. This is a long way from over.
You are not alone in your opinion of Sarah as you will see more of in this week’s Update. I remain only slightly negative of neutral on her. I see goodness in her, but she has got to polish things up quickly . . . tolerance of the country bumpkin image will only go so far. Too many social conservatives like her for the same reason they liked W – unwavering support for the social conservative agenda.
. . . follow-up comments:
“Are the women in Iran being badly treated by the men there because of their protesting ? I am surprised they have the nerve to protest with the way women are treated in the mid east. Great balls.
“I have to say I am a lot more than SLIGHTLY negative of Sarah Palin ... I feel the party needs extremely intelligent but congenial runners for the next one. Just hope Palin doesn't hog the opportunity for someone like that to enter the race. Polish is a nice word for what she needs. The problem is ... we already know who she is ... if she suddenly becomes more polished, it just wouldn't be believable. We don't need chameleons in the race. We need experienced, educated people who are KNOWN for being just that. Surely there must be plenty of good candidates out there. Someone needs to tell Sarah to ‘FUHGET ABOUT IT’ ... ha ! Does she honestly think she has enough support?”
. . . and my follow-up response:
Iranian women have better status than many Muslim women, but they are a far cry from Western standards. Although you can see women without a modesty headscarf, there are parts of Iran where any woman (regardless of religion) would be seriously beaten for not wearing a proper head scarf or for having any skin other than her face and hands showing. Male-centric polygamy is OK; female-centric polygamy would get the woman stoned to death. Hell, the Iranians hung two teenage boys for homosexual conduct for God’s sake. Iran is a highly educated country by Muslim standards, and yet women are still considered property owned by fathers or husbands. So, are Iranian women being badly treated by men? Yes, without question, by any standard I can accept. Are they being treated badly because they are protesting? Yes, but then again, anyone protesting now can expect to be beaten or killed. Further, if anyone would like to really understand torture, go try an Iranian prison.
I am not an unwavering supporter of any ideology – religious, political, or otherwise – and least of all any political party. I believe enquiry, questioning, debate and reasoning should be applied to everything. I am about as politically independent as I can get. I think the Republican Party has abandoned it foundation and betrayed its supporters. I think the Democratic Party has tried too hard to become Republican. I do not understand why the Libertarians cannot gain more traction. But, they all have their faults and very few have the courage to admit it. Truth be told, I could never support Sarah Palin for any political office; she is ideologically (as far as I can tell) way too far to the right for my liking. My tacit defense is more personal than political.

My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)